Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukhtiar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 May, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
223
1. CRM-M-45996-2023
Date of decision: May 7th, 2024
Mukhtiar Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
2. CRM-M-13354-2024
Rajan
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-45996-2023).
Mr. K.B. Raheja, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-13354-2024).
Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of the above-mentioned petitions for
grant of regular bail as they arise out of same FIR i.e. FIR No.58 dated
10.05.2022 under Sections 18, 25, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Kulgarhi,
District Ferozepur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they have been
falsely implicated in the instant case for having been found in possession of
10 kilograms of opium pursuant to a secret information received. Learned
counsel submit that ever since they were arrested on 10.05.2022, beyond the
stage of presentation of challan, the trial has not proceeded and has
come to a virtual standstill. In support, learned counsel have drawn the
attention of this Court to the zimni orders, which have been annexed as
Annexure P-7, wherein it stand reflected that after the challan was
presented on 01.11.2022, the trial Court had been adjourning the case
repeatedly. Learned counsel submit that since the petitioners have clean
antecedents and are not involved in any other case, they be extended
the concession of bail, more so since one of the co-accused
Kuldeep Singh had already been extended the concession of
anticipatory bail and co-accused Nishan Singh has already been granted
the concession of regular bail. While drawing the attention of this Court
to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar
Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) No.6690/2022) decided
on 25.01.2023, learned counsel have submitted that in identical
circumstances, the accused therein had been extended the concession of
bail on account of his long incarceration.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer
and submissions made by the counsel opposite has not been able to
dispute the submissions made by the counsel opposite that till date,
charges have not been framed. It has also not been disputed that the
petitioners are not involved in any other criminal case much less under
the NDPS Act. However, learned State counsel, on instructions from
ASI Surjit Singh, has informed the Court that recovery of 10 kilograms
of opium (non-commercial quantity) was affected from the petitioners
pursuant to a secret information received and hence, there was no
question of they being falsely implicated in the present case.
4. On a pointed query, learned State counsel on instructions
has also not been able to dispute that co-accused Kuldeep Singh and
Nishan Singh have already been enlarged on bail. On a further query,
learned State counsel has informed the Court that the next date fixed
before the trial Court is 18.05.2024 when the charges are likely to be
framed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
6. No doubt, a recovery of 10 kilograms of opium was
allegedly affected from the petitioners, however, this Court cannot turn
a blind eye to their long incarceration and also to the fact that even
though challan was presented on 05.09.2022, till date charges had not
been framed. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's
case (supra) has held as under:-
".... It is true that the quantity recovered from the
petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of
Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted.
However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the
fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a
half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section
37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so
when the trial is yet to commence though the charges
have been framed."
7. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove,
the instant petitions are allowed. The petitioners be admitted to bail to
the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However,
it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be
construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
8. Needless to say, in case the petitioners misuse the
concession of bail granted to them, the State would be at liberty to seek
cancellation of the same.
May 7th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
